2 ms·

So what is your hypothesis for why the text was redacted? 1) negligence? ("Oh, we didn't see the text was there") 2) the belief it was historical cruft of no

So what is your hypothesis for why the text was redacted? 1) negligence? ("Oh, we didn't see the text was there") 2) the belief it was historical cruft of no importance (so why say it was still in effect?) 3) the belief it was a minor thorn that could be swept under the rug, but of no current impact 4) the belief it was a thorn with near-term impact on a pending case - and a case the redactionists likely knew about. 5) something else? You seem to be saying that #2 is the most likely, so #4 should be dismissed. My point was the relationship between the Passamaquoddy and Maine have changed since the 1800s - and certainly improved since the Carter era. Why continue with the redaction given that points 1-4 would seem to put a chill on that relationship?

s1artibartfast 3y ago
>You seem to be saying that #2 is the most likely, so #4 should be dismissed. Absolutely. to answer your questions. >2) the belief it was historical cruft of no importance (so why say it was still in effect?) It had to stay in effect because the text said it could not be altered or removed without the approval Massachusetts. The cruft Hypothesis is supported by the fact that the sections were suggested by a panel charged with identifying cruft, discussed as cruft, and 99% of the material WAS cruft. >4) the belief it was a thorn with near-term impact on a pending case - and a case the redactionists likely knew about. This is undermined by the fact that legally, the change has no impact and said so. Maine was already routinely ignoring treaty obligations. The best argument that can be made here is that it was some sort of implied signal or dog whistle to to the court, emboldening it to keep doing what it was doing. But then again, that supposes that the a signal was both necessary and needed to be covert, in a time where people casually and openly ignored their treaty obligations. Putting this together, I think it is most likely that people (redactionists and voters) felt it was cruft. The Passamaquoddy tribe was down to a few hundred people in the mid 1800's out of Maine 600,000. >My point was the relationship between the Passamaquoddy and Maine have changed since the 1800s - and certainly improved since the Carter era. I have no problem whatsoever with reversing the redaction. I just dont think we need to invent or believe an unlikely conspiracy theory to justify doing so. It is just as easy to say they thought this was cruft then, but we dont now, because we think it is important to highlight and honor our agreements. >Why continue with the redaction given that points 1-4 would seem to put a chill on that relationship? I honestly dont understand what this means. Are you saying that we should actively define history as to not put a "chill on the relationship"? If so, I think this is the kind of revisionist history that other people are reacting to. We shouldn't need to build some loosely supported theory about why and how things happened, if the goal is to simply reverse a redaction.
- eesmith 3y ago
  > Absolutely That interpretation - which may be correct, but there is little evidence one way or the other - isn't that much better. It reflects the then wide-spread view of Euro-Americans that their culture to be superior, and the native tribes should be treated essentially as children or second-class citizens, with inferior claims to white people and the state. > The Passamaquoddy tribe was down to a few hundred people in the mid 1800's out of Maine 600,000. Don't forget the Penobscot, who also had treaty obligations. I have a hard time accepting the "cruft" hypothesis. The tribes had non-voting representation at the capital, and https://umaine.edu/nativeamericanprograms/wp-content/uploads/sites/320/2017/07/Pawling2016.pdf https://umaine.edu/nativeamericanprograms/wp-content/uploads... shows the Euro-American population of Maine were mighty annoyed by those 'few hundred people' in the mid-1800, for example; "Perry citizens collectively petitioned Maine twice in 1839, complaining that Indians took birch bark from their land to make fishing torches and that they dismantled fences around their farms for firewood.67 In all these attempts to obtain retribution for damages, many of which supplied ample evidence, the Maine legislature dismissed the requests. Maine had not sorted out the idea of property and homeland, the latter of which entailed the continual use of resources. Ambiguities remained around absolute property title to the land, especially around harvesting resources." and "In April 1857 Maine governor Joseph Williams wrote to the Indian agent expressing his “displeasure” about repeated trespass by the Passamaquoddy on private property in Perry. He stated that the charges violated the 1794 treaty in which the Indians agreed not to molest any townspeople." That was less than 20 years before the redaction. > It is just as easy to say they thought this was cruft then So why did the well-trained lawyers of the constitutional committee think it was cruft? > I honestly dont understand what this means I mean is there any interpretation of the history which justifies keeping the text redacted when there are ongoing and improved relationships between Maine and the tribes? If the text continues to be redacted, why shouldn't is be interpreted as a continuation of the history of treating the local tribes as cruft?

s1artibartfast 3y ago

>You seem to be saying that #2 is the most likely, so #4 should be dismissed. Absolutely. to answer your questions. >2) the belief it was historical cruft of no importance (so why say it was still in effect?) It had to stay in effect because the text said it could not be altered or removed without the approval Massachusetts. The cruft Hypothesis is supported by the fact that the sections were suggested by a panel charged with identifying cruft, discussed as cruft, and 99% of the material WAS cruft. >4) the belief it was a thorn with near-term impact on a pending case - and a case the redactionists likely knew about. This is undermined by the fact that legally, the change has no impact and said so. Maine was already routinely ignoring treaty obligations. The best argument that can be made here is that it was some sort of implied signal or dog whistle to to the court, emboldening it to keep doing what it was doing. But then again, that supposes that the a signal was both necessary and needed to be covert, in a time where people casually and openly ignored their treaty obligations. Putting this together, I think it is most likely that people (redactionists and voters) felt it was cruft. The Passamaquoddy tribe was down to a few hundred people in the mid 1800's out of Maine 600,000. >My point was the relationship between the Passamaquoddy and Maine have changed since the 1800s - and certainly improved since the Carter era. I have no problem whatsoever with reversing the redaction. I just dont think we need to invent or believe an unlikely conspiracy theory to justify doing so. It is just as easy to say they thought this was cruft then, but we dont now, because we think it is important to highlight and honor our agreements. >Why continue with the redaction given that points 1-4 would seem to put a chill on that relationship? I honestly dont understand what this means. Are you saying that we should actively define history as to not put a "chill on the relationship"? If so, I think this is the kind of revisionist history that other people are reacting to. We shouldn't need to build some loosely supported theory about why and how things happened, if the goal is to simply reverse a redaction.

eesmith 3y ago
> Absolutely That interpretation - which may be correct, but there is little evidence one way or the other - isn't that much better. It reflects the then wide-spread view of Euro-Americans that their culture to be superior, and the native tribes should be treated essentially as children or second-class citizens, with inferior claims to white people and the state. > The Passamaquoddy tribe was down to a few hundred people in the mid 1800's out of Maine 600,000. Don't forget the Penobscot, who also had treaty obligations. I have a hard time accepting the "cruft" hypothesis. The tribes had non-voting representation at the capital, and https://umaine.edu/nativeamericanprograms/wp-content/uploads/sites/320/2017/07/Pawling2016.pdf https://umaine.edu/nativeamericanprograms/wp-content/uploads... shows the Euro-American population of Maine were mighty annoyed by those 'few hundred people' in the mid-1800, for example; "Perry citizens collectively petitioned Maine twice in 1839, complaining that Indians took birch bark from their land to make fishing torches and that they dismantled fences around their farms for firewood.67 In all these attempts to obtain retribution for damages, many of which supplied ample evidence, the Maine legislature dismissed the requests. Maine had not sorted out the idea of property and homeland, the latter of which entailed the continual use of resources. Ambiguities remained around absolute property title to the land, especially around harvesting resources." and "In April 1857 Maine governor Joseph Williams wrote to the Indian agent expressing his “displeasure” about repeated trespass by the Passamaquoddy on private property in Perry. He stated that the charges violated the 1794 treaty in which the Indians agreed not to molest any townspeople." That was less than 20 years before the redaction. > It is just as easy to say they thought this was cruft then So why did the well-trained lawyers of the constitutional committee think it was cruft? > I honestly dont understand what this means I mean is there any interpretation of the history which justifies keeping the text redacted when there are ongoing and improved relationships between Maine and the tribes? If the text continues to be redacted, why shouldn't is be interpreted as a continuation of the history of treating the local tribes as cruft?